Pope's friend stands down
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 12:00:30 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Pope's friend stands down
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Pope's friend stands down  (Read 2931 times)
Huckleberry Finn
Finn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,819


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 30, 2004, 02:49:30 PM »

EU row candidate stands down
 
(BBCWORLD)

Italy's controversial European Commission nominee, Rocco Buttiglione, has said he is standing down as commissioner-designate.

"I am ready to stand aside to smooth the way for (the) commission," he said.

Mr Buttiglione faced opposition from the European Parliament over his views on homosexuality and women.

The incoming Commission president, Jose Manuel Barroso, earlier withdrew his proposed list of commissioners because of the dispute.

MEPs had threatened to veto the proposed commission if Mr Buttiglione stayed.

The EU parliament can only approve nominations for the 25-seat executive Commission as a whole.

Reading from a statement, Mr Buttiglione said he wished the Barroso commission every success because Europe needed a strong commission.

His voice shaking with emotion, Mr Buttiglione said "I'm an innocent victim of an orchestrated campaign".

He said his views about gays had been misquoted, and he criticised the press for superficial coverage.

"I am not an adversary to human rights, I am a champion of them," he said.

He went on to thank Mr Barroso for having "defended me as much as possible".

The Italian prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, said on Friday that Mr Buttiglione would most likely be replaced as Italy's nominee to the new commission.

Mr Buttiglione, a close friend of Pope John Paul II, will remain a minister in the Berlusconi government.

The BBC's chief political correspondent Guto Harri in Rome says there has been speculation that Foreign Minister Franco Frattini will be appointed to take on the job.

Mario Monti, a former Italian EU Commissioner, has also been frequently mentioned as a replacement and would be a popular choice, our correspondent says.

The issue of Mr Buttiglione's appointment to the commission overshadowed the signing of the EU constitution, in a lavish ceremony in Rome on Friday.

As the event progressed, Mr Barroso held hurried talks with EU leaders to seek support for his planned changes to the commission.

More about Buttiglione

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3718210.stm

European "tolerant" Left has been traditionally intolerant towards intolerant views.
Logged
Michael Z
Mike
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,288
Political Matrix
E: -5.88, S: -4.72

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 30, 2004, 05:35:47 PM »

European "tolerant" Left has been traditionally intolerant towards intolerant views.

"We will not tolerate intolerance!" ;-)
Logged
Brambila
Brambilla
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,088


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 30, 2004, 08:44:33 PM »

It's a pity that people go to such measures to destroy in the name of "tolerance". The left's ideal state is one of pandemonium.
Logged
Jens
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,525
Angola


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 01, 2004, 05:32:30 PM »

It's a pity that people go to such measures to destroy in the name of "tolerance". The left's ideal state is one of pandemonium.
Pleace, try to study the case. As stated in another thread, what really was troublesome was his views on marriage, not homosexual marriage but the position of the woman. Her primary job was to stay home and take care of the kids!
The Juridical commisary cannot be a person who has as official policy to fight against equality between man and woman, especially at this point where women's rights and the equality between man and woman just has become official Union policy and written down in the new constitution.
His other points of views did not improve his position, but inequality is defying tolerance and cannot be explaned as "intolerance! among ALDE, PES, the Greens and minor groups (Buttiglioni was only supported by the EPP)
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 01, 2004, 07:28:52 PM »

It's a pity that people go to such measures to destroy in the name of "tolerance". The left's ideal state is one of pandemonium.
Pleace, try to study the case. As stated in another thread, what really was troublesome was his views on marriage, not homosexual marriage but the position of the woman. Her primary job was to stay home and take care of the kids!
The Juridical commisary cannot be a person who has as official policy to fight against equality between man and woman, especially at this point where women's rights and the equality between man and woman just has become official Union policy and written down in the new constitution.
His other points of views did not improve his position, but inequality is defying tolerance and cannot be explaned as "intolerance! among ALDE, PES, the Greens and minor groups (Buttiglioni was only supported by the EPP)

Jens, good point.  (but then nobody ever claimed jpII was going to be another johnny XXIII.   Wink

somebody find this good man an avatar!  quick!

Logged
Brambila
Brambilla
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,088


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 01, 2004, 09:42:05 PM »

It's a pity that people go to such measures to destroy in the name of "tolerance". The left's ideal state is one of pandemonium.
Pleace, try to study the case. As stated in another thread, what really was troublesome was his views on marriage, not homosexual marriage but the position of the woman. Her primary job was to stay home and take care of the kids!
The Juridical commisary cannot be a person who has as official policy to fight against equality between man and woman, especially at this point where women's rights and the equality between man and woman just has become official Union policy and written down in the new constitution.
His other points of views did not improve his position, but inequality is defying tolerance and cannot be explaned as "intolerance! among ALDE, PES, the Greens and minor groups (Buttiglioni was only supported by the EPP)

I don't know if what you speak of is an official church teaching, but how is it intolerant to believe women should be children caretakers? I mean, women can still have their careers, but their primary function is to raise children. I'm sure that Buttiglione wasn't trying to legistlate women's roles.
Logged
Jens
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,525
Angola


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 02, 2004, 06:11:11 AM »

It's a pity that people go to such measures to destroy in the name of "tolerance". The left's ideal state is one of pandemonium.
Pleace, try to study the case. As stated in another thread, what really was troublesome was his views on marriage, not homosexual marriage but the position of the woman. Her primary job was to stay home and take care of the kids!
The Juridical commisary cannot be a person who has as official policy to fight against equality between man and woman, especially at this point where women's rights and the equality between man and woman just has become official Union policy and written down in the new constitution.
His other points of views did not improve his position, but inequality is defying tolerance and cannot be explaned as "intolerance! among ALDE, PES, the Greens and minor groups (Buttiglioni was only supported by the EPP)

I don't know if what you speak of is an official church teaching, but how is it intolerant to believe women should be children caretakers? I mean, women can still have their careers, but their primary function is to raise children. I'm sure that Buttiglione wasn't trying to legistlate women's roles.
Buttigioni was advocating that a womans place was at home taking care of the children, not out working. That is, as far as I am, and most of EU is concerned discrimination.
First of all is it the job of both the mother AND the father to raise their children together and second, women have the right to chose their own future - and if you want to stay home and take care of the house and children, fine with me - but nobody, especially the Juridical Commissioner, should try to dictate what people are going to do with their lives.
What would have been Buttigioni's post is one of the most important in the new Commission, because it is the responsibility of the Juridical Commissioner to implement the new constitution, including the Charter, where, for the first time, equality between Man and Woman has become an official part of the politics of the Union.
Imagine a man with opinions directly opposite of the word of the Constitution having the job of setting precidence for the understating of that Constitution!!

Oh, and no the primary function of that magnificent half of humanity called women is not to raise children. Please enter the Century of the Fruitbat (Even though I think we already left it ;-) )
Logged
Jens
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,525
Angola


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 02, 2004, 06:14:13 AM »

somebody find this good man an avatar!  quick!



 Thanks
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,590
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 02, 2004, 07:19:13 AM »

Please enter the Century of the Fruitbat (Even though I think we already left it ;-) )

Yep... it's the Century of the Anchovy now ;-)
Logged
Platypus
hughento
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,478
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 02, 2004, 08:12:07 AM »

I lean more towards the Tortilla, because of growing Mexican influuence in the USA and therefore the western world Wink

The decade of the anchovy was the 1970s Smiley
Logged
Brambila
Brambilla
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,088


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 02, 2004, 04:00:39 PM »

It's a pity that people go to such measures to destroy in the name of "tolerance". The left's ideal state is one of pandemonium.
Pleace, try to study the case. As stated in another thread, what really was troublesome was his views on marriage, not homosexual marriage but the position of the woman. Her primary job was to stay home and take care of the kids!
The Juridical commisary cannot be a person who has as official policy to fight against equality between man and woman, especially at this point where women's rights and the equality between man and woman just has become official Union policy and written down in the new constitution.
His other points of views did not improve his position, but inequality is defying tolerance and cannot be explaned as "intolerance! among ALDE, PES, the Greens and minor groups (Buttiglioni was only supported by the EPP)

I don't know if what you speak of is an official church teaching, but how is it intolerant to believe women should be children caretakers? I mean, women can still have their careers, but their primary function is to raise children. I'm sure that Buttiglione wasn't trying to legistlate women's roles.
Buttigioni was advocating that a womans place was at home taking care of the children, not out working. That is, as far as I am, and most of EU is concerned discrimination.
First of all is it the job of both the mother AND the father to raise their children together and second, women have the right to chose their own future - and if you want to stay home and take care of the house and children, fine with me - but nobody, especially the Juridical Commissioner, should try to dictate what people are going to do with their lives.
What would have been Buttigioni's post is one of the most important in the new Commission, because it is the responsibility of the Juridical Commissioner to implement the new constitution, including the Charter, where, for the first time, equality between Man and Woman has become an official part of the politics of the Union.
Imagine a man with opinions directly opposite of the word of the Constitution having the job of setting precidence for the understating of that Constitution!!

Oh, and no the primary function of that magnificent half of humanity called women is not to raise children. Please enter the Century of the Fruitbat (Even though I think we already left it ;-) )

Jens, you can say all you want, but how is he intolerant? I don't see how that view is intolerant. If I'm a capitalist, does that make me intolerant? If I'm against illegal immigration am I intolerant? I simply don't see the connection.
Logged
Jens
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,525
Angola


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 03, 2004, 01:44:38 PM »

It's a pity that people go to such measures to destroy in the name of "tolerance". The left's ideal state is one of pandemonium.
Pleace, try to study the case. As stated in another thread, what really was troublesome was his views on marriage, not homosexual marriage but the position of the woman. Her primary job was to stay home and take care of the kids!
The Juridical commisary cannot be a person who has as official policy to fight against equality between man and woman, especially at this point where women's rights and the equality between man and woman just has become official Union policy and written down in the new constitution.
His other points of views did not improve his position, but inequality is defying tolerance and cannot be explaned as "intolerance! among ALDE, PES, the Greens and minor groups (Buttiglioni was only supported by the EPP)

I don't know if what you speak of is an official church teaching, but how is it intolerant to believe women should be children caretakers? I mean, women can still have their careers, but their primary function is to raise children. I'm sure that Buttiglione wasn't trying to legistlate women's roles.
Buttigioni was advocating that a womans place was at home taking care of the children, not out working. That is, as far as I am, and most of EU is concerned discrimination.
First of all is it the job of both the mother AND the father to raise their children together and second, women have the right to chose their own future - and if you want to stay home and take care of the house and children, fine with me - but nobody, especially the Juridical Commissioner, should try to dictate what people are going to do with their lives.
What would have been Buttigioni's post is one of the most important in the new Commission, because it is the responsibility of the Juridical Commissioner to implement the new constitution, including the Charter, where, for the first time, equality between Man and Woman has become an official part of the politics of the Union.
Imagine a man with opinions directly opposite of the word of the Constitution having the job of setting precidence for the understating of that Constitution!!

Oh, and no the primary function of that magnificent half of humanity called women is not to raise children. Please enter the Century of the Fruitbat (Even though I think we already left it ;-) )

Jens, you can say all you want, but how is he intolerant? I don't see how that view is intolerant. If I'm a capitalist, does that make me intolerant? If I'm against illegal immigration am I intolerant? I simply don't see the connection.
Intolerance is when you will not accept the way of living of other people. Buttiglioni is saying that woman belongs in the home to take care of the children. Implicit in that is that all women that does not stay home ect is doing something wrong (to simplify it a bit). Buttiglioni cannot accept the choises that some people make and wants to limit them to his idea of "proper" behaviour. Because he consider som certain ways of living inproper, he is being intolerant.

The majority of the EU parliament is not being intolerant when they reject his point of view, they rejects intolerance and promotes acceptence of different ways of living.

Supporting a certain ideology or having an opinion on issues is not intolerance as long as you accept that people disagree with you and respect that opinion.
Logged
Brambila
Brambilla
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,088


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: November 03, 2004, 04:27:39 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The assumption that Buttiglione believes that women not staying at home are doing something wrong is a very dangerous one. He never made such a claim. I wouldn't say that Buttiglione disrespected other's beliefs, and although he did make slurs about homosexuals he apologized for them. He is NOT intolerant. The parliament is.
Logged
Jens
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,525
Angola


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 04, 2004, 09:46:41 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The assumption that Buttiglione believes that women not staying at home are doing something wrong is a very dangerous one. He never made such a claim. I wouldn't say that Buttiglione disrespected other's beliefs, and although he did make slurs about homosexuals he apologized for them. He is NOT intolerant. The parliament is.

This is what Buttiglioni said (From BBC):

"The family exists in order to allow women to have children and to have the protection of a male who takes care of them," he said.

"This is the traditional vision of marriage that I defend."


He has also said that the reason behind the low birth rate in Europe was that women were concentrating too much on their careers and not enough on having babies. [quote: BBC]

If that isn't to say that working women are doing something wrong, I don't know....

Using such a false analogy as blaming falling birth rates on women working is an attemp to claim that a working woman is doing something wrong.
(fact: In Denmark where more than 80% of the women are working the ratio between birth rate/death rate (It doesn't make sense to only talk about birth rate) has been steady after WWII).
Declining birth rate is is more based on the fact that a number of children isn't nessesary to secure your retirement; better knowledge when it comes to how to avoid getting pregnant; Dropping infant death rate (before 1900 the average was 2 living and to dead children; Changes in family structure (no more Grand Family) and numerous other reasons
Logged
Brambila
Brambilla
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,088


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: November 04, 2004, 04:02:42 PM »

I think it's a farse that you're attacking him for being "intolerant" simply because he's defending the traditional household. He makes no implication whatsoever that women who have careers are doing something wrong. I know several families who are ardent supporters of the traditional family as Buttiglioni describes it, and yet they work because they are forced to. Buttiglioni is NOT trying to criminalize women from working, he's trying to defend the natural, traditional family. Also, although I disagree that the main reason why the European birth rate is so low is because of women seeking careers (I believe the main reason is the widespread immoral use of contraceptives and abortions), I do agree that it is one of the reasons.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: November 04, 2004, 04:06:49 PM »

Buttiglioni is NOT trying to criminalize women from working, he's trying to defend the natural, traditional family.

<emphasis mine>

If that is a natural family, it follows that a family where the woman is working is unnatural.

What if the male of the house wants to stay home, and the woman wants to work?  Is this bad? Tongue
Logged
Brambila
Brambilla
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,088


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: November 04, 2004, 04:23:29 PM »

Is Kerry intolerant because he thinks homosexual sex is a sin, personally?

I think if there is no good reason, it is bad, because the child needs to be raised by the mother for psychological reasons.
Logged
Bono
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,699
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: November 04, 2004, 05:10:43 PM »

I think it's a farse that you're attacking him for being "intolerant" simply because he's defending the traditional household. He makes no implication whatsoever that women who have careers are doing something wrong. I know several families who are ardent supporters of the traditional family as Buttiglioni describes it, and yet they work because they are forced to. Buttiglioni is NOT trying to criminalize women from working, he's trying to defend the natural, traditional family. Also, although I disagree that the main reason why the European birth rate is so low is because of women seeking careers (I believe the main reason is the widespread immoral use of contraceptives and abortions), I do agree that it is one of the reasons.

I would like to see some evidence that contraception use is a sin. I would like that evidence to not be a quote from a Cathecism, since it is of little value to someone who does not recognize the authority behind it.
Logged
Brambila
Brambilla
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,088


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: November 05, 2004, 11:52:57 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The church believes that sex is the union between a man and a woman to express their relationship, not for recreation, and anything that ends the physical and spiritual aspect of sex is sinful.

Now, where do we get this? Thomas Aquinas argues in the Summa Theologica that for us to not reproduce is halting the human race. Therefore, not having sex for reproduction is a step before murder. It's not ending a life, it's preventing a life. As John Chrysostom says, it's sowing the field "eager to destroy the fruit". In addition, having sex in these cases is pure lust, and not out of charity. Of course, sex can strengthen a relationship, but use of contraceptives becomes dependent, and that is wrong. Contraception IS anti-life, it is HALTING life from entering this world. You are making eachother objects of sexual desire.

I quote John Calvin:

Onan not only defrauded his brother of the right due him, but also preferred his semen to putrefy on the ground….The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between a man and a woman is a monstrous  thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before is born the hoped-for offspring….If any woman ejects a foetus from her womb by drugs, it is reckoned a crime incapable of expiation, and deservedly Onan incurred upon himself the same kind of punishment, infecting the earth by his semen in order that Tamar might not conceive a future human being as an inhabitant of the earth.

So why do Catholics allow Natural Family Planning, or a natural birth control, which is when couples are allowed to have sex in emergencies on infirtile days? Because it follows the natural. God purposefully gave us firtile and infirtile days for women- some days women are firtile, other times they are not.

Thus contraception is sinful and immoral.
Logged
raymondluxuryyacht
Rookie
**
Posts: 24


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: November 05, 2004, 12:44:08 PM »

This planet already has enough people.  On the contrary, I think it is better to use birth control than to bring a child into this world, and when the parents are uncapable of providing for the child.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: November 05, 2004, 05:38:33 PM »

Is Kerry intolerant because he thinks homosexual sex is a sin, personally?

No, because he does not seem to intend to force that on anyone else, like this Italian fellow does.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

In that case, a child raised by a lesbian couple would be doubly psychologically-endowed because he/she would have two mothers.

Besides, what evidence do you have that having a mom take care of a kid is better than having a dad take care of the kid?  Does that mean a dad should not take care of the kid at all?
Logged
Brambila
Brambilla
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,088


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: November 08, 2004, 02:46:05 PM »

Ilikeverin, show me evidence of his intent to force such views. Any evidence, specifically about women working at home.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, you have misunderstood. A child needs both a mother and father to normally and naturally grow up. If the biological parent is not present, something unnatural may appear. Now, civilization has given us alternatives if one parental figure is absent (parental death, divorce, etc), so that another parent may be replaced (second marriages, adoption, etc). However, this alternative does not apply to everyone. Since men and women are naturally different, parents of one sex or single parents simply do not have the ability to raise children normally, though a child may grow up without problems. Children need both a mother and father.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 3.023 seconds with 12 queries.